Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Goaltenders final round)

I don't honestly think Liut can even come close to saying that. Unless by 1990 we're talking about an elite backup. He was flip-flopping good/bad years with Sidorkiewicz, and two disappointing seasons as Beaupre's backup from retirement, by that point. Great first half of the decade though, and definitely considered one of the best right up to the Millen trade at the very least, with '87 adding a bit of later cred.

Well, Liut was 4th in AS voting and 5th in Vezina voting in 1989-90, so he wasn't a backup that particular year.

Rollins was sent in the minor, but was never given a chance by the Hawks to find another NHL job, which I believe he would of been able to secure in 1958 and 1959. Even in his stint with the Rangers in 1960 (where he was absolutely brilliant), the Hawks try to prevent Rollins to play for the Rangers. To say that Rollins was 'done' after 1957, would be very wrong to assume.

I have been following the exercise since the beginning, but not enough to venture and give a strong opinion. However, I do have a soft spot for Al Rollins. I am unsure what Mike Liut brings to the table that Rollins doesn't. I'm always ready to be swing away by argument, but if my man isn't in the top-4, I want to see good reasons!

I assume Lundqvist and Connell are shoe in. Very surprise to see the wide range of opinion on Cheevers (always had Cheevers under both Giacomin and Vachon, but outside top-40?)

Rollins was sent in the minor, but was never given a chance by the Hawks to find another NHL job, which I believe he would of been able to secure in 1958 and 1959. Even in his stint with the Rangers in 1960 (where he was absolutely brilliant), the Hawks try to prevent Rollins to play for the Rangers. To say that Rollins was 'done' after 1957, would be very wrong to assume.

I have been following the exercise since the beginning, but not enough to venture and give a strong opinion. However, I do have a soft spot for Al Rollins. I am unsure what Mike Liut brings to the table that Rollins doesn't. I'm always ready to be swing away by argument, but if my man isn't in the top-4, I want to see good reasons!

I assume Lundqvist and Connell are shoe in. Very surprise to see the wide range of opinion on Cheevers (always had Cheevers under both Giacomin and Vachon, but outside top-40?)

The fact that Rollins received more All Star votes than any goalie other than the big 3 in his last full NHL season (even though he was far behind 3rd) is pretty solid evidence that he was probably good enough to be a starter for some team when he got sent down.

Tim Thomas is older than Manny Fernandez.
Tim Thomas had groin issues in 2010, but is getting criticized for losing his job.
Tim Thomas rebounded from 2010 with his 2011, which was pretty good.

Fernandez obviously didn't rebound as well from his injuries, and it's interesting how little confidence there was league-wide in his abilities at the end. I mean, despite being part of the '08/09 Jennings-winning duo and becoming a free agent that off season, Boston went with Rask/Thomas, no one offered Manny a contract, and he basically retired by default, lol.

I'm not saying any of this with respect to how/why Thomas "lost" his starting job in 2010, btw. Just posting on the disingenuous nature of the 20 point SV% gaps you brought up - specifically wrt Fernandez. But on that point, bettering Rask by 20 points that season isn't necessarily the most important place to focus. Rask actually has a higher career SV% behind the exact same team(s), and had (even just to that point) shown incredible promise after his first season being leaned on heavily by the team. I personally don't hold that against Thomas, and don't understand how anyone could, really. Case was closed, so to speak, the very next year.

The fact that Rollins received more All Star votes than any goalie other than the big 3 in his last full NHL season (even though he was far behind 3rd) is pretty solid evidence that he was probably good enough to be a starter for some team when he got sent down.

That's what I'm saying. I just don't want people to interpret: ''sent down to minor'', as ''not good enough to play in the NHL anymore''. Actually, I would believe that Rollins was still such a good goaltender that it's the reason the Hawks prevented him to play anywhere else in 1958 & 1959. I remember Rollins sued the Hawks for that reason.

Well, Liut was 4th in AS voting and 5th in Vezina voting in 1989-90, so he wasn't a backup that particular year.

You knew he was going to get votes for the stats, and it's not like he got a lot of votes to earn that 4th place (what, less than half of 3rd place?) Led the league in GAA after all, and had 4 shutouts... And he played how many games? Less than 40? When he was traded to Washington for Corriveau, he formed what could be at best described as a tandem with Beaupre, both getting two games (both in losing causes) as the Caps were swept from the playoffs. Wonky back and performance starts pushing Liut clearly behind Beaupre and eventually out of the league as soon as the '90/91 season (pre/post all-star stats splits for '90/91 are equally bad), which means that (and I agree, this is technical and semantic, sort of) Liut can't really be considered elite in for all of 1990 without the qualifications I suggested.

That's what I'm saying. I just don't want people to interpret: ''sent down to minor'', as ''not good enough to play in the NHL anymore''. Actually, I would believe that Rollins was still such a good goaltender that it's the reason the Hawks prevented him to play anywhere else in 1958 & 1959. I remember Rollins sued the Hawks for that reason.

in fact, i did interpret it that way before discussions. i still wish Rollins did better than 2nd Team AS in the minors, though.

You knew he was going to get votes for the stats, and it's not like he got a lot of votes to earn that 4th place (what, less than half of 3rd place?) Led the league in GAA after all, and had 4 shutouts... And he played how many games? Less than 40? When he was traded to Washington for Corriveau, he formed what could be at best described as a tandem with Beaupre, both getting two games (both in losing causes) as the Caps were swept from the playoffs. Wonky back and performance starts pushing Liut clearly behind Beaupre and eventually out of the league as soon as the '90/91 season (pre/post all-star stats splits for '90/91 are equally bad), which means that (and I agree, this is technical and semantic, sort of) Liut can't really be considered elite in for all of 1990 without the qualifications I suggested.

It was a short season for Liut, but calling him a backup is incorrect. He missed every game in late December and all of January because he needed knee surgery, hence fewer than 40 games. Tandem goalie? Yes, but most teams ran tandems in 1990. Only Casey and McLean saw more than 56 games. And in the playoffs, 11 of 16 teams saw more than one goaltender record a decision.

It was a short season for Liut, but calling him a backup is incorrect. He missed every game in late December and all of January because he needed knee surgery, hence fewer than 40 games. Tandem goalie? Yes, but most teams ran tandems in 1990. Only Casey and McLean saw more than 56 games. And in the playoffs, 11 of 16 teams saw more than one goaltender record a decision.

Sure, but my contention is mainly with the label "elite"; particularly with the end point of 1990, given his level of play in the '90s playoffs and beginning of the '90/91 season (during which he clearly became used and considered as Beaupre's backup).

Fernandez obviously didn't rebound as well from his injuries, and it's interesting how little confidence there was league-wide in his abilities at the end. I mean, despite being part of the '08/09 Jennings-winning duo and becoming a free agent that off season, Boston went with Rask/Thomas, no one offered Manny a contract, and he basically retired by default, lol.

I'm not saying any of this with respect to how/why Thomas "lost" his starting job in 2010, btw. Just posting on the disingenuous nature of the 20 point SV% gaps you brought up - specifically wrt Fernandez. But on that point, bettering Rask by 20 points that season isn't necessarily the most important place to focus. Rask actually has a higher career SV% behind the exact same team(s), and had (even just to that point) shown incredible promise after his first season being leaned on heavily by the team. I personally don't hold that against Thomas, and don't understand how anyone could, really. Case was closed, so to speak, the very next year.

Full disclosure, Tuukka Rask has the highest career save percentage out of anyone in the official record with more than 100 games, but Thomas has a better cumulative figure in the career overlap.

I don't honestly think Liut can even come close to saying that. Unless by 1990 we're talking about an elite backup. He was flip-flopping good/bad years with Sidorkiewicz, and two disappointing seasons as Beaupre's backup from retirement, by that point. Great first half of the decade though, and definitely considered one of the best right up to the Millen trade at the very least, with '87 adding a bit of later cred.

I guess it would be possible to argue that a guy like Liut was separated from the likes of, say, Vachon and Giacomin primarily by the fact of being born a bit later and therefore not getting to have the typical slow and graceful decline that most goalies experience in their later years. Instead, Liut and the rest of his generation got only about 10 years of serious career time before they were made obsolete by the butterfly generation. In that sense, it's a bit unfair to judge Liut too harshly for his lack of strong finish -- it's not like Dryden and Esposito would have turned the corner from the 1980s to the 1990s without missing a beat. Liut and his peers were just the guys on the scene when the paradigm shift occurred.

I don't know if that theory would stand up to scrutiny. But it's a more generous view of 1980s goalies, rather than viewing them all as flashes in the pan.

That's what I'm saying. I just don't want people to interpret: ''sent down to minor'', as ''not good enough to play in the NHL anymore''. Actually, I would believe that Rollins was still such a good goaltender that it's the reason the Hawks prevented him to play anywhere else in 1958 & 1959. I remember Rollins sued the Hawks for that reason.

And in case anyone checked out of the previous thread a little early -- the reason Rollins was sent down was that the Hawks had landed Glen Hall, and Rollins had some sort of friction with coach/GM Tommy Ivan.

(This is me speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if the friction arose from Ivan constantly spending resources to acquire goalies like Hall and Lumley to compete with Rollins, considering the problems they had at other positions)

It's not like there was more than maybe one other guy in the world who could have kept that job, and it's not like Rollins really deserved his fate in the minors. And all that is AFTER being stuck behind Turk Broda till he was 25.

Full disclosure, Tuukka Rask has the highest career save percentage out of anyone in the official record with more than 100 games, but Thomas has a better cumulative figure in the career overlap.

Sure, but having said all of that, at the time the Bruins had to make the decision, Rask was making it easier (or harder, I suppose, depending) on them. When's the last time you looked at Rask's Feb/Mar/Apr splits for the '09/10 season? Ridiculous numbers. Calculated gamble by Boston, and certainly not a serious blemish on Thomas's record, imo.

And in case anyone checked out of the previous thread a little early -- the reason Rollins was sent down was that the Hawks had landed Glen Hall, and Rollins had some sort of friction with coach/GM Tommy Ivan.

(This is me speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if the friction arose from Ivan constantly spending resources to acquire goalies like Hall and Lumley to compete with Rollins, considering the problems they had at other positions)

Sort of like a modern team refusing to trade a player to another team in their division out of fear it would come back to bite them in the ass? In the O6, if you got an better goalie, you could just bury your very good previous goalie in the minors rather than give him a shot with another team, so he wouldn't come back to bite you.

There's a reason players like Ted Lindsay and Doug Harvey fought so hard to get a Player's Union.

- I didn't take Richter seriously last round and I still don't. Vernon is at about the same level. Hextall is below them. Kipper is above that whole lot, and I can't even see myself voting him in. Liut and Thomas are better, and Lundqvist is better than them.

Same here, even though I have the following order : Thomas, Lundqvist, Liut.

Quote:

- Connell over Chabot/Kerr, Chabot/Kerr over Roach. Everyone agree?

Actually, I have them that way : Connell over Kerr, Kerr above Roach, and Chabot quite below.

Quote:

- All I know about Hern's ranking is that it should be below LeSueur. With Percy in, you could reasonably vote Hern anywhere.

I don't honestly think Liut can even come close to saying that. Unless by 1990 we're talking about an elite backup. He was flip-flopping good/bad years with Sidorkiewicz, and two disappointing seasons as Beaupre's backup from retirement, by that point. Great first half of the decade though, and definitely considered one of the best right up to the Millen trade at the very least, with '87 adding a bit of later cred.

OK, maybe it’s cheap to call 1990 elite since he played 37 games. But he was 2nd in the NHL in sv% that year, and 4th in all-star voting (1-7-2), all other goalies below him had 1-5-11 combined. And from 1980-1988 he was a workhorse that was top-5 in minutes every year but one, and always had solid sv%, including a 4th in 1985, the one year he wasn’t top-5 in minutes.

I more or less stand by what I said. 1989 is the only year in between 1980 and 1990 where he can’t be credibly called “elite”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

I guess it would be possible to argue that a guy like Liut was separated from the likes of, say, Vachon and Giacomin primarily by the fact of being born a bit later and therefore not getting to have the typical slow and graceful decline that most goalies experience in their later years. Instead, Liut and the rest of his generation got only about 10 years of serious career time before they were made obsolete by the butterfly generation. In that sense, it's a bit unfair to judge Liut too harshly for his lack of strong finish -- it's not like Dryden and Esposito would have turned the corner from the 1980s to the 1990s without missing a beat. Liut and his peers were just the guys on the scene when the paradigm shift occurred.

I don't know if that theory would stand up to scrutiny. But it's a more generous view of 1980s goalies, rather than viewing them all as flashes in the pan.

Good point.

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-17-2013 at 06:28 PM.
Reason: merged short posts

Second of all, when a coach decides to play a goalie 70+ games it has just as much to do with his perception of the backup as anything else, so performance (something a goalie can control) compared to the backup plays a part as well. You can earn more starts by performing that much better than your in-house competition, regardless of who else is getting X number of starts across the league and what their situation is.

I'd agree with that as a general rule of thumb, but there are times when the coach will give the backup a certain percentage of starts regardless of how well the starter plays. One of those situations is when the backup is a potential future franchise goalie and the starter is near the end of his career. In that situation, playing the starter constantly is not only a questionable coaching decision, but also an unwise career move considering it directly undermines the way the GM is building the franchise.

Sure, but having said all of that, at the time the Bruins had to make the decision, Rask was making it easier (or harder, I suppose, depending) on them. When's the last time you looked at Rask's Feb/Mar/Apr splits for the '09/10 season? Ridiculous numbers. Calculated gamble by Boston, and certainly not a serious blemish on Thomas's record, imo.

Absolutely agree. I've gone on record saying that I thought he was second only to Miller that season. Which is why it bothers me when Rask has been used to discredit Thomas in these threads since Round 7.

I more or less stand by what I said. 1989 is the only year in between 1980 and 1990 where he can’t be credibly called “elite”.

I personally wouldn't have called him elite in either '88/89 OR '89/90, and even by the end of '87/88 he looked very to me little like the Pearson-winning version of himself, or even the statistically proficient version of himself just a year before. Not that I got to see him that often back then, and I admittedly tend to remember old playoffs better than old regular seasons (more television visibility of out-of-market teams).

Sort of like a modern team refusing to trade a player to another team in their division out of fear it would come back to bite them in the ass? In the O6, if you got an better goalie, you could just bury your very good previous goalie in the minors rather than give him a shot with another team, so he wouldn't come back to bite you.

There's a reason players like Ted Lindsay and Doug Harvey fought so hard to get a Player's Union.

Could you provide evidence of this actually happening?

From the major O6 transactions(trades, sales, drafts) involving goalies:

Maybe Rollins is the only one it happened to. I mean, the evidence presented that Rollins was unfairly prevented from playing with another team isn't conclusive, but there's definitely a decent amount of smoke there.

And it's definitely true that your O6 team owned your rights for life until they traded them, right?

Absolutely agree. I've gone on record saying that I thought he was second only to Miller that season. Which is why it bothers me when Rask has been used to discredit Thomas in these threads since Round 7.

Maybe Rollins is the only one it happened to. I mean, the evidence presented that Rollins was unfairly prevented from playing with another team isn't conclusive, but there's definitely a decent amount of smoke there.

And it's definitely true that your O6 team owned your rights for life until they traded them, right?

1957-58:

Boston and Toronto went with youth - Simmons and Chadwick

Chicago opted for Glenn Hall over Lumley and Rollins.

Detroit, Montreal, New Yprk had Sawchuk, Plante and Worsley.

Boston upgraded to Lumley while Toronto brought in Johnny Bower after the season.

The only iffy move was the Rangers use of Marcel Paille. But the Rangers were cheap and poorly managed refusing to spend on depth.